Why do people believe in Creationism despite its lack of testable predictions? (reject, Creator)

[Fluffy]

Firstly are there any testable predictions made by Creationism?

If there aren't why do people still believe in Creationism?
a) A lack of understanding of why testable predictions are so important?
b) There is sufficient merit in the structure of Creationism to warrant belief in it even in the abscence of testable predictions?
c) Something else?

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Firstly are there any testable predictions made by Creationism?

If there aren't why do people still believe in Creationism?
a) A lack of understanding of why testable predictions are so important?
b) There is sufficient merit in the structure of Creationism to warrant belief in it even in the abscence of testable predictions?
c) Something else?

With all due respect Fluffy, and ya know I love ya, I thought the title of this poll was one of the strangest that I've seen in my years on RF. To me, it's like asking, "Why do people eat ice cream despite its lack of meat?"

Just speaking for myself, whether or not I believe in something is not predicated on whether it has testable predictions. It doesn't even occur to me.

My number one question would be:
"Does it fit with what I've experienced in the past?"

And if the answer is no, then my second question would be:
"Do I trust its source?"

It is much less about "logic" and much more about personal experience, and yes, the f-word, faith.

[yossarian22]

I despise the "personal choice" and faith arguments more then anything else.

[Buttercup]

Could you define a bit more what "testable predictions" means to you?

[Fluffy]

Heya Lilithu,
I think it would only seem strange to a person who understood how one could arrive at a belief outside of the scientific method especially with such a high degree of conviction. I lack this understanding and so I ask only so that I might gain insight into it.

Faith and science are not mutually exclusive. It is only the role that faith should play that is disagreed upon. So when you mention faith, I can completely understand that since I have faith as well but I attempt to restrict my faith to as few assumptions as possible and judge those assumptions that I have faith in according to whether I feel they are worthy of faith.

Surely others must have similar criteria since otherwise they would be unable to distinguish between those beliefs they felt worthy of holding (ie those they hold) and those that are not worthy of holding (ie those they reject).

You list two criteria but I don't see how you arrived at holding them in the abscence of logic or at least according to some level of reasoning.

Originally Posted by yossarian22

I despise the "personal choice" and faith arguments more then anything else

At one point I despised such arguments as well but I have since realised that this was a result of my frustration at being unable to understand them.

Heya Buttercup,
Absolutely. Perhaps an example would be the best way of doing so.

Darwin predicted that PreCambrian fossils would be found. Had they not been found then evolutionary theory would need to be significantly altered to account for their abscence. As they have been found, a prediction has been made based on evolutionary theory that was later verified.

[!Fluffy!]

Well, is it logical to suppose that science can ever disprove a Creator?

And although scientific method may be able to go a long way towards proving certain theories, it fails miserably in the "why" department, imho.

[Buttercup]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Heya Buttercup,
Absolutely. Perhaps an example would be the best way of doing so.

Darwin predicted that PreCambrian fossils would be found. Had they not been found then evolutionary theory would need to be significantly altered to account for their abscence. As they have been found, a prediction has been made based on evolutionary theory that was later verified.

I had a feeling that was the direction you were headed.

I'm not a theist at the moment but, I'm guessing you might hear a few stories of prophesy, especially of Christ's predicted arrival. Other than that I'm surmising most Creationists don't find testable predictions necessary when faith is involved in the equation.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by yossarian22

I despise the "personal choice" and faith arguments more then anything else.

That's nice.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Heya Lilithu,
I think it would only seem strange to a person who understood how one could arrive at a belief outside of the scientific method especially with such a high degree of conviction. I lack this understanding and so I ask only so that I might gain insight into it.

Honestly, I find it strange to think that someone could ONLY believe in things via the scientific method.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Surely others must have similar criteria since otherwise they would be unable to distinguish between those beliefs they felt worthy of holding (ie those they hold) and those that are not worthy of holding (ie those they reject).

Similar criteria to what? (Sorry for being dense.) Everyone has criteria by which they distinguish, yes, but they apparently are based on different things for different people.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

You list two criteria but I don't see how you arrived at holding them in the abscence of logic or at least according to some level of reasoning.

Oh, I didn't say that my criteria were devoid of reasoning. I think someone deciding things in a way that is completely devoid of reasoning is almost as hard for me to imagine as someone deciding things based exclusively on reasoning. We say it's one or the other (head/heart) in order to distinguish what we emphasize, but I'm quite certain that most of us use both, to one extent or another.

But while most everyone uses reasoning, "testable predictions" is another level.

And imo, it's not the lack of testable predictions that makes biblical creationism suspect.

IMO, biblical creationism does have testable predictions. It's just that they have failed the tests. For example, if biblical creationism is true, then the earth should only be a few thousand years old. That is a testable prediction. But the earth turns out to be much older.

It's not the lack of testable predictions. It's the fact that the "theory" does not jive with the empirical evidence.